A closer look at transit data
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Aloha Cliff,
I enjoyed your tit-for-tat response in last Friday's Advertiser. I imagine the editorial board will probably get tired of the two of us continuing this debate in the newspaper so I thought I would respond to you personally.
The Texas highway Institute Mobility Index
When you quote the Texas Highway Institute data, you must consider how the data is derived. You should read the caveat that TTI puts out at how we get the numbers. There are no actual measurements of congestion. Instead, the index derives a number by comparing population and transportation inventory data. The most important transportation factors are the size of the urbanized area, the number of lane miles of freeway and the annual number of Vehicle Miles Traveled. Almost all other indexes are derived from these numbers. Through initial research, TTI has calibrated these data to actual conditions in about eight cities. The assumption is that all cities are similar to the sample cities. The result is comparative data but it can vary widely due to unique features of geography, land use or local economy.
Let's compare Portland and Honolulu. I've included the numbers in this e-mail.
You will note that between 1983 and 2000 Honolulu's traffic went from 12th worst in the country to 46th worst. Seemingly quite an improvement wouldn't you say? You will note that most of our "improvements" are correlated with the periodic increase in freeway miles – particularly the opening of the H3. I would grant you that this highway helped Kailua and Kaneohe – areas that have not grown in twenty years – but has the new highway really helped reduce our traffic congestion.
We were also helped by our recorded decline in population between 1997 and 2001. Less traffic congestion because of declining population and economic activity. Great transportation policy!
In Portland's case, their rating plummeted from 36th worst in 1982 to eighth worst in 2001. The TTI culprit there was population growth. Compared to Honolulu, Portland's population grew by about 40% compared to our lackluster slow growth of 23% over twenty years. During the nineties, Portland grew by 34% compared to our 5%. Our freeway lane miles grew about the same as Portland's; that is 24% here vs. 22% in Portland.
But remember, the TTI doesn't actually measure congestion. In the TTI sweepstakes, he who builds the most freeway lane miles usually wins! Portland chose light rail and smart growth but these policies are not reflected well in an index that relies largely on supply information rather than outcome data. That's why Rubin, Cox and Poole like to quote them so much.
Look at little closer at the TTI estimates of annual traffic delays due to congestion. The same organization estimates that Portland's overall delay due to congestion would be 33.8% greater if there was no transit. In Honolulu, TTI estimates that our congestion in Honolulu would be about 75% worse if all he people who took transit drove. In fact, on this measure, Honolulu is second only to New York City for the amount of congestion "avoided" due to transit.
We can argue about the methodology that TTI uses but it is disingenuous to choose those portions of the TTI index you wish to highlight without a full examination of the complete mobility report or a discussion about the transit contribution to congestion relief contained in the report.
I think the TTI annual mobility report does a great job of publishing comparative numbers on urban areas. But the study is not an absolute and the authors highlight that. Our Honolulu ratings went up largely because of our slow growth- especially in the nineties and because we opened the H3 freeway. Portland's went down because their population grew much faster due to their more robust economy. Portland grew almost twice as fast as Honolulu over the twenty-year period and almost seven-times faster (34% vs. 5%) during the nineties. Some economists would say that this was a measure of prosperity. But Portland purposely chose a different strategy that did not emphasis the development of new freeway lanes.
I own a second home in Portland and now know the area fairly well. I can tell you from my personal first-hand knowledge that congestion is substantially less in Portland than in Honolulu. The U.S. Census also bears this out. If you run the numbers on Portland versus Honolulu, you will note that the average Portland commute is significantly less time consuming than in Honolulu. This despite the fact that the Portland metro area is about three times larger than Honolulu.
Max Popularity in Portland
I quoted opinion survey information that stated that 90% of Portland residents approved of MAX and I stand by those numbers. You reference was to a voter question as to whether property taxes should be increased to allow an extension of the MAX system to Vancouver, Washington which was turned down by a small majority of voters. These are not the same question. Around the same time frame, some Portland voters also declined to raise property taxes for schools. As a result, the school year was shortened by about 20 days. It would not be proper to infer from this vote that a majority of Portland residents oppose public schools. After the vote, the MAX system planners modified their plan and put together a less ambitious and less costly North Portland MAX plan that did not rely upon increased taxes. To say that my claim was inaccurate is simply not true.
The Rail Transit Share of Travel
You quote an often reported statistic from the 2000 census that only 1.9 percent of people use rail transit in Portland. I've tried to replicate the data from the Census that results in this number but have been unsuccessful. It appears this number refers to the Portland Metropolitan area which includes either five or eight counties in Washington and Oregon. Light rail in 2000 comprised only 33 miles of track compared to thousands of miles of freeways, highways and arterial streets. Further, when you get down to the mode choice in the U.S. census, you are forced to select a single mode. For example, if you take a bus and light rail to work, the census forces you to choose between a bus, a streetcar, a railroad, a subway or an elevated line.
It makes little sense to cite metropolitan area totals when the system is so small. Between 1990 and 2000, Portland was one of the few areas where transit use increased. And since the census, daily rail ridership in Portland has increased 49%. Here is a Link to the latest ridership report which, by the way, appears to be about 2,000 more daily rail riders than the piece I wrote for the Advertiser. Further, even though I gave you an opening, you didn't comment on the 1.2% of the Oahu travel market served by the $1.6 billion H-3. It would seem to me that that was a fair comparison.
You could site several light rail disasters across the U.S. and you would be right on target. However, in my judgment, you are way off the mark when you try to portray Portland as a failure. I've been on the trains; they are well used and quite effective.
The challenge for all of us on Oahu, now that growth is occurring again, is too find a way to solve our quickly worsening urban transportation problem or accept lower economic growth and a possible a deteriorating standard of living for most residents. And the major issue for Oahu is that all of our choices, whether more highways, ferry boats, monorails or buses are all going to be substantially more costly than the average cost today. Your billion dollar highway proposal would be about $80 million in most parts of the country because it would not be elevated. A lightrail system here, if elevated, would be about in excess of $100 million a mile – not the $30-$50 million a mile common for grade light rail on the mainland. The money will have to come from somewhere and highway tolls would not come close to paying the bill. I think I could make a good economic case for transit that would be more cost-effective than a reversible highway but I'll grant you the highway/transitway concept is a viable proposal that should be evaluated.
Best regards
Roger Morton |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||